Avatarland? scaleback

[yitbos96bb]

In ten years I really doubt many people will even remember Avatar.

Given the 3 other Avatar movies due out over the next several years that are all being filmed simultaneously, I wouldn't bet on that.

 

[skier_pete]

Do you people even read your own posts? Thank Walt none of you run the company:

A land of fictional creatures based on a billion dollar motion picture with 2-3 planned sequels: Stupid.

A land of fictional creatures NOT based on a billion dollar motion picture: Brilliant.

I've said it before, Disney is ONLY willing to invest this money BECAUSE they have a property that has name recognition behind it. Whether its based on Avatar, Lord of the Rings, Transformers or whatever shouldn't really matter to real Disney Parks fans. What you should care about is that design and build something new, innovative, and with some cutting edge technology. Is Cars anyones FAVORITE Pixar film? Does that make Carsland any less awesome?

And Disney has not once mentioned it is scaling back Avatarland. Iger only said that they are rolling back capital spending - from the $2 BILLION they spent in the last 3 years. Last I checked, they claimed Avatarland was going to be about $500 million - most likely spent over the next 4 years. Checking that math, they can still spend what they said while cutting back capital spending.

I know Disney got really cheapo for a while in the 2000-2005 timeframe, but everything they've done in the last 3-4 years (new DCL ships. BVS and CL in DLR, the new FLE, TSMM, Star Tours 2.0) has been pretty world class. Has any piece of real information come out that said Avatarland will suck?

I don't know, I feel like I can post til I'm blue in the face (no pun intended) but really we will just have to wait and see...but what Disney has been doing of late has convinced me that what they do will be done right and will blow people away. And if that's the case, whether Avatar is around in 10 or 20 or 30 years will be irrelevant.

 

[super mike b]

Given the 3 other Avatar movies due out over the next several years that are all being filmed simultaneously, I wouldn't bet on that.

I guess only time will tell......

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

I guess only time will tell......

That makes no sense. Avatar WILL be in the public eye over the scope of this time and whether you or anyone else likes it is irrelevant.

 

[super mike b]

That makes no sense. Avatar WILL be in the public eye over the scope of this time...

It makes perfect sense. I don't see Avatar ever having as great a following as the other themes Disney has had success with.

...and whether you or anyone else likes it is irrelevant.

And you think I don't make sense. You come accross like you are stomping your feet over this!

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Do you people even read your own posts? Thank Walt none of you run the company:

A land of fictional creatures based on a billion dollar motion picture with 2-3 planned sequels: Stupid.

A land of fictional creatures NOT based on a billion dollar motion picture: Brilliant.

I've said it before, Disney is ONLY willing to invest this money BECAUSE they have a property that has name recognition behind it. Whether its based on Avatar, Lord of the Rings, Transformers or whatever shouldn't really matter to real Disney Parks fans. What you should care about is that design and build something new, innovative, and with some cutting edge technology. Is Cars anyones FAVORITE Pixar film? Does that make Carsland any less awesome?

And Disney has not once mentioned it is scaling back Avatarland. Iger only said that they are rolling back capital spending - from the $2 BILLION they spent in the last 3 years. Last I checked, they claimed Avatarland was going to be about $500 million - most likely spent over the next 4 years. Checking that math, they can still spend what they said while cutting back capital spending.

I know Disney got really cheapo for a while in the 2000-2005 timeframe, but everything they've done in the last 3-4 years (new DCL ships. BVS and CL in DLR, the new FLE, TSMM, Star Tours 2.0) has been pretty world class. Has any piece of real information come out that said Avatarland will suck?

I don't know, I feel like I can post til I'm blue in the face (no pun intended) but really we will just have to wait and see...but what Disney has been doing of late has convinced me that what they do will be done right and will blow people away. And if that's the case, whether Avatar is around in 10 or 20 or 30 years will be irrelevant.

I dunno Pete,

I'm usually in your quadrant...but not on this voyage...

Disney disastrous developments between 1995ish and the present - even with some better efforts in recent years - makes them a reasonable target of skepticism in this endeavor.

Add to it avatar...which is in no way above the fray either.

Your premise is:
A. Give it a chance
B. the characters/story it's based on don't matter that much
C. Disney can be trusted to do a good job

I'll give you A...but can't go with B or C

 

[Disney Prince]

Avatarland makes sense from a business point of view. I think what people are worried about is the franchise's relative lack of any really compelling characters or narrative. Jake Sully is himself little more than an avatar (ha) for the audience entering Pandora, and Neytiri was just a blue Pocahontas. The star of Avatar is James Cameron's planet Pandora, and the thing that "Avatarland" critics do miss is that Avatarland could turn out great if Disney and JC maintain a focus on the alien planet itself. What's wonderful about the Avatar mythology is that the humans are evicted from Pandora at the end of the first film. Since Cameron has announced three more Avatar films, that gives audiences the world over hours upon hours to explore Pandora itself. It's supposed to be a vast and incredible planet just barely touched upon by the original film. Those who played the Avatar video game on a major console have a better idea than the film viewers of the kind of world James Cameron has devised, though apparently even the game just scratches the surface.

What Disney has got to do with Avatarland is make it all about the guest's experience on Pandora. They've got to almost completely ignore the characters from the film and work to supply guests with memorable but inobtrusive Na'vi hosts on Pandora. If this is done well, it could be really all-ages, highly environmentally educational, and an all-around blast. But they've gotta focus on the environmental aspect. If they bring the human stuff from the first film in, it'll be a huge mistake.

How to deal with having human guests on Pandora is a tricky question, though. It's hard to know how literally they're going to want to approach it. Will the Na'vi at AK's Pandora just treat the human visitors like they are themselves Na'vi, or will human guests undergo some sort of "Avatar" transformation just preceding their entrance into the land? Will this issue be addressed at all - it seems easier to just skip around it, after all.

Avatarland shouldn't be scaled back - it should be done right. The Pandora story is so, so in line with Animal Kingdom's great message of conservation, and the interplanetary focus offers a really healthy and forward-thinking message to park-goers. Pandora's plight is symbolic of Earth's plight, but it's also another planet, and though it isn't real, it might get guests thinking about environmental issues on other planets. In the future world, this stuff is going to be important.

Think of Pandora/Avatarland as Animal Kingdom's Tomorrowland. I know we all wanted Animal Kingdom to have a Fantasyland (Beastly Kingdomme), and maybe that will still arrive someday. Dinoland is the park's Frontierland, in a way. It needs to be fixed too, and maybe someday we can have an animal Fantasyland. For the time being, the addition of a Tomorrowland isn't a bad thing. It all helps Animal Kingdom to grow into the incredible center of entertainment and conservation it has always had the potential to be.

Short version; I hope Avatarland isn't scaled back!